Before the massive growth of our welfare state, private charity was the sole option for an individual or family facing insurmountable financial difficulties or other challenges. How do we know that? There is no history of Americans dying on the streets because they could not find food or basic medical assistance.
When President Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform act in 1996, which he negotiated with then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, the left claimed people would starve. They didn't. According to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, between 1996 and 2000, the employment rate for single mothers increased from 63 percent to 76 percent.
Left wing radio host Thom Hartmann, as those familiar with his rants are aware, has long railed against Republicans as hellbent on dismantling not just the welfare state provisions of Lyndon Johnson's so-called Great Society, most specifically Medicare, but also the core provisions of Roosevelt's New Deal, with Social Security topping the list.
That the problems of today's black Americans are a result of a legacy of slavery, racial discrimination and poverty has achieved an axiomatic status, thought to be self-evident and beyond question. This is what academics and the civil rights establishment have taught. But as with so much of what's claimed by leftists, there is little evidence to support it.
As Wyoming Republican Senator John Barasso appeared as a guest on CNN's Wolf show, host Wolf Blitzer pushed for the creation of a national health insurance program along the lines of the Bernie Sanders "Medicare for all" plan as he claimed that a similar system used in Canada and Europe "works well."
New York Times economics reporter Alan Rappeport furthered the myth that Trump’s health bill would be “cutting deeply into Medicaid” spending in Thursday’s Times, “Risky Mix: Cutting Taxes For Rich and Aid for Poor.” He was harsher on Twitter: “Cutting taxes for the rich and aid for the poor is proving to be a politically toxic combo.”
On Wednesday's The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, MSNBC contributor Charlie Sykes joined substitute host Nicolle Wallace -- formerly of the Bush administration -- for a "recovering Republicans" therapy session as the two discussed the Republican health care plan, and, true to form, Sykes made jabs from the left in spite of being a supposedly right-leaning analyst.
In the long run, Republicans’ health-care-reform efforts are going to backfire, suggested Vox editor-in-chief Klein last Thursday. He argued that if Congress junks the Affordable Care Act, “Medicare for all” will become a rallying cry for Democrats, and once Dems return to power, “they’ll pass what many of them wanted to pass” instead of the ACA: “A heavily subsidized buy-in program for Medicare or Medicaid, funded by a tax increase on the rich. A policy like that…will satisfy an angry party seeking the fastest, most defensible path to restoring [Obamacare’s] coverage gains.”
The New York Times was single-minded in its attack on President Trump’s first budget proposal. Little emphasis on the potential savings to taxpayers and reductions to the deficit (if the optimistic economic growth goals are met). Instead the Times went on a nationwide person-hunt for potential victims of the hypothetical budget cuts, based on current spending levels that have been inflated over decades of federal overspending. Obama's budget-busting budgets by contrast invariably received optimistic treatment of their most dubious and grandiose promises, from supposedly cynical Times reporters.
In “Me and Bobby McGee,” Kris Kristofferson wrote that “freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.” On Wednesday, Brian Beutler suggested that “freedom” is just another word Republicans use to deprive Americans of health coverage. The GOP, contended Beutler, has “a weird way to define liberty” that involves 14 million people losing coverage “almost immediately.” He added, “Their conception of liberty and freedom [is] exceptionally callous.”
Most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, do not show much understanding or respect for the principles of personal liberty. We criticize our political leaders, but we must recognize that their behavior simply reflects the values of people who elected them to office. That means we are all to blame for greater governmental control over our lives and a decline in personal liberty. Let me outline some fundamental principles of liberty.
On Tuesday's New Day, as Chris Cuomo debated Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King over the issue of ObamaCare repeal, the CNN host seemed unaware that technically having health insurance "coverage" on paper does not always guarantee that one will actually receive the health care one needs if a patient is unable to find a doctor or other health care provider to actually do the work. After Rep. King argued, "you could have coverage, you can have a cadillac plan, but if they won't take your policy, if you're on Medicare that's not being honored, if you're on Medicaid that's not being honored, If they won't accept your policy, then you don't have coverage," Cuomo seemed confused as he responded: "Wait. Who's 'they'? If you have coverage from a company, then you're getting care. What do you mean, 'If they don't accept the policy'? How does that work?"